Montagu: myths and misinformation

Lord Montagu says, inter alia, that the police were "out to get him" after his release from the Scouts' charges and that Reynolds and McNally, the two RAF airmen, were given the chance to save their skins by testifying against him. He also says they had been arrested at Christmas and subjected to hours of brutal questioning over the holiday, frightened out of their wits and kept behind bars.

I have no doubt Lord Montagu totally believes that what he has said is correct, but he is wrong. He is quite correct, however, in saying the two airmen were experienced homosexuals. They were very experienced indeed and it was because of this that the "Montagu Case" commenced.

At the time I was an investigator in the RAF Special Investigation Branch, and was sent to the RAF hospital at Ely to interview Reynolds and McNally about allegations they had been involved in a homosexual ring in Hong Kong. They admitted their involvement and while searching their belongings I found a used train ticket to Beaulieu station.

At this stage there had been no mention of Lord Montagu. I was aware, however, that he had appeared in court charged with offences against Scouts. I questioned the two airmen again and they admitted going to Beaulieu and said they had committed homosexual acts. They said they had become involved with Lord Montagu, Peter Wildeblood of the Daily Mail and Michael Pitt-Rivers, Lord Montagu's cousin. I also found incriminating correspondence in their belongings.

They were later questioned by the senior investigator in the case, Sqd Ldr Fionan McCarthy (now deceased) and they made voluntary statements giving details of what happened at Beaulieu. It was quite clear there was a prima facie case and, because civilians were involved and the alleged offences had taken place in Hampshire, the Hampshire CID were notified and a Superintendent took over the case.

It is quite clear, therefore, that the police were not "out to get" Lord Montagu. They had received evidence of criminal acts and were obliged to take action. What would have been said if they had ignored the evidence or tried to hush it up? Regarding the other allegations. The two airmen were not brutally questioned. The evidence was such that they really had no defence.

I think they decided to confess, assuming, possibly correctly, that they would look better by co-operating rather than lying. I also took them to the Station Adjutant and asked both Reynolds and McNally if they had any complaints about the way they had been treated. They both said no. This was my usual practice.

It is correct they were behind bars at one stage and that they were frightened. The reason was that the press were in hot pursuit. It was decided to transfer them from the hospital to RAF Duxford, where they lived in the Guardroom, sleeping in a secure area in the cells. They were more than happy with this arrangement because they were indeed frightened. Not of the police, but of the press reporters.

Far from treating them brutally during the Christmas period, I took them out to a local pub for a meal and drinks, but we were tracked down and invaded by reporters and had to escape through a rear window.